BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 02:13 PM

You left out Chigley...

Given that enforced regime change imposed by external forces would be illegal, there isn't really a better alternative, if that one is on the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:04 PM

I'm surprised Teribus, that you appear to be supporting the insurgency here yet were totally against it in Iraq.

I'm sure if the peasants revolted again in the UK, under the weight of Tory attacks on the poorest in society,you would be one of the first to want them shot down?

Does the rule of law apply only in this sceptred isle?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 04:18 PM

The fact of the matter is that we are interfering in the affairs of another sovereign country under the guise of protecting one section of the civilian population.......or do you think that when the insurgent tanks start shelling Tripoli we will start incinerating them?

This adventure appears to be over a multi billion oil contract which is on the table between BP and the Lybian government.

Of course if Colonel Gadaffi survives, he will quite rightly wipe his arse with said contract.

We are there to make sure Colonel Gadaffi does not survive, just like Iraq.

We never ever learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 05:14 PM

1: "I'm surprised Teribus, that you appear to be supporting the insurgency here yet were totally against it in Iraq." - akenaton

Good parallel that. Only thing is your timing is off. The parallel to Iraq with the current insurgency in Libya is that the insurgency in Libya today is identical to the Shia uprising in Southern Iraq in 1991 when the USA did everything to encourage the uprising but did nothing to physically help. At the time I was fully behind that uprising as well - no conflict at all.

The Kurds in the North were luckier they had a border with a NATO country Turkey that allowed British Royal Marines of 45 Commando to enter Iraq and place themselves between the Kurds and SAddam Hussein's Army, otherwise without that that physical presence the Kurds would have again died in their tens of thousands.

2: "The fact of the matter is that we are interfering in the affairs of another sovereign country under the guise of protecting one section of the civilian population"

Now which section of the population is it that we are protecting? So far the only section that has been protected has been the civilian population that the forces of Muammar Gaddafi have been attacking. The "Rebels" have yet to attack any civilians and if they do I am sure that steps will be taken to stop them.

3: "This adventure appears to be over a multi billion oil contract which is on the table between BP and the Libyan government."

Your timing is off again akenaton the contract had already been agreed between Gaddafi and BP before this little lot flared up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 09:05 PM

Kevin, how long have you had this devotion to mass-murdering tyrants?

Is this a recent development?

It appears you'd be just fine with whatever treatment Gadhafi thought appropriate for the "rats".

Or will your election team remain in Libya forever to prevent Gadhafi's revenge?   Sorry, that's not really very practical.

Have you ever heard of the film "Jud Suess"?   You might want to read about it--and its uses.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 11 - 09:09 PM

Also try "Der ewige Jude", especially the opening.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 11 - 09:41 AM

"Devotion to mass-murdering tyrants" - I haven't said anything said to justify that. He's a standard enough brutal ruler, probably no worse than many others whom we have also supplied with arms and friendship over the years, but quite bad enough. I'd be happy to see the back of him - but the point is, that's a matter for the people of Libya, and I haven't seen any evidence that they share my unfavourable views of the man and his regime.

I'd think it quite likely that a properly monitored election might get rid of Gaddafi, but I wouldn't bet on it. However I don't think it makes too much sense to put his departure in advance of that as a non-negotiable condition for a ceasefire, in a civil war of which the outcome is at very best extremely uncertain, and very possibly a lot worse than that. Offering a ceasefire on condition of properly monitored elections makes sense if only as a negotiating ploy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 12:31 AM

Tell me Kevin what post in the "Government" of Libya does Muammar Gadafi hold - What is his title? (He, himself says that he has none) When was the last time his name appeared on ANY ballot paper?

As long as Gaddafi is there, there can be no free and fair elections in Libya, irrespective of how many international observers and degree of oversight you put in place. Once the monitors leave that is when the blood-letting commences. If you want an example Kevin take a look at Zimbabwe.

The "Rebels" are perfectly correct in their demands Gaddafi must go - The Palestinians should have insisted on the same with regard to Yasser Arafat in 1971.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 11:41 AM

Ah..... but what the fuck has it to do with a bankrupt second rate nation like ours.......We punish the poorest for the crimes of the capitalist system, yet find the money to slaughter young men who are just doing their job being soldiers.

They never see us, just a rumble of aircraft engines far out of range.....like shooting fish in a barrel really ....not really war at all, never getting our hands bloody....never even having to engage our brains.....just like a video game played with real flesh and blood.....barbecued!

You say the insurgents are correct, but you have no more idea what their real agenda is than I have.
Even the Americans have said they believe there are links to Islamic fundamentalism and I think that is more than likely.
Of course there will be young people who are fooled by the facade of "Western style democracy", but the Mullahs will soon decapitate these boys when the time comes.....at the moment they must pay lip service to "democracy" to obtain the slaughtering capacity of the three most warmongering nations in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 12:11 PM

It may be perfectly reasonable for the rebels/insurgents/dissidents to have the overthrowal of Gaddafi as an objective in making war, but that's different from making it a pre-condition for a ceasefire, rather than a fair election which enables the people of Libya to get rid of him, if that is what they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Apr 11 - 03:57 PM

View from the Guardian
Its all about oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 07:29 AM

It is being reported that Gaddafi's forces are using cluster bombs in civilian areas in Misurata.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/201141591544963774.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 09:03 AM

Sorry , Kevin that I was so aggressive in my last post.    But you must imagine that because in your world of sweetness and light everybody plays by Marquess of Queensberry rules, that tyrants will also. Specifically that Gadhafi will. I'm afraid this is a bit naive.

First of all, he may well (with about $6 billiion still in Libya), have enough to buy the election.

Secondly, consider his track record. He has a long history of sending assassination squads all over the world to dispose of dissidents.   What makes you think he would let dissidents still in Libya survive?

And look at what else his wonderful family has done to show their tolerance and good intentions.

Item:    When Hannibal Gadhafi, a son, was arrested by Swiss police in 2009 for battery, what was Gadhafi's reaction?    At the G-8 summit he publicly called for the dissolution of Switzerland, its territory to be divided between France, Italy and Germany. (Time 25 Sept 2009)

In August 2009, Hannibal Gadhafi stated that if he had a nuclear bomb: "I would wipe Switzerland off the map".

As late as 2004, Gadhafi still had bounties on critics, including $1 million for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist (Guardian 28 Mar 2004).


There was a warming of relations between Gadhafi and the West later, but with the recent moves by the West against him, it seems more than a bit likely, to say the least, that he will return to 2004-style attitudes.

He also, among other things, has said that HIV is a "peaceful virus, not an aggressive virus"


Neither he nor any member of his family can be trusted--and most , including the Brother Leader himself, do not appear to be playing with a full deck.



Furthermore, suppose your election were held and Gadhafi was considered to have won fair and square according to your election observers.

Then what?    I'm sure you'd insist on unfreezing the $50 billion or so now frozen. (And of course there would be new oil money coming in.)

And what do you think he'd do with the money?    Devote it to the welfare of his citizens?

Consider again his track record.   He would have no incentive to curry favor with the West. In the past he has sought several times to get nuclear weapons.   And he would have the incentive--and money--to do so.

Introducing yet another element of tension into the Mideast.    And with his well-known views on Israel, Israel would probably feel compelled to take out his nuclear sites--before it became impossible to do so.

No, for a huge list of reasons, he and his family cannot play any role in any future Libyan government.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 12:25 PM

The trouble is, the logic of Ron's position is invasion and occupation, in the expectation that a free election might go the wrong way. There's an analogy with the position summed up by Eisenhaower in relation to the reason elections could not be held in Vietnam "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh".

And that bit of realpolitick didn't work out too well.

And invasion and occupation, even if successful, would have to be done on the same illegal basis as in Iraq. Not an encouraging precedent either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 16 Apr 11 - 05:54 PM

You all seem to ignore the RTP norm, I guess civilian lives are expendable....too bad that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 08:10 AM

I just heard someone from the MoD on BBC Radio Devon News saying that it's all become very tricky in Libya and now 'they've got themselves into a difficult situation which is not going to be easy to get out of'

Well, well, who'd a thought it, eh?

Did they honestly think he was just going to pack his TinyTim bag and various hat boxes and tiptoe through the tulips to another place? Did they seriously think that a totally untrained crowd of, so often, hysterical men would be able to defeat a tyrant such as Gadaffi, when his army was still loyal to him?

This already is a major disaster and it's going to get one helluva lot worse, probably end up involving other countries too as The Jihad Camel starts its lonesome trek into the hot desert sun...picking up many followers in its noonday shadow.

Oh, brother, have we stirred up a scarab's nest with our continuous Western Arrogance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 01:30 PM

It's great to have you back, Kevin, after your serious medical issues.   And I understand that you do not want to have your position on this thread misrepresented.

However for some reason you seem to think it's just fine to misrepresent mine--"Invasion". .

If you would actually take the time to read the thread, instead of making false comparisons (Vietnam, Iraq) you would find that I have clearly differentiated between the trumped-up Iraq invasion, and helping the rebels in Libya (who include quite a few of Gadhafi's own military. ) After having clearly rejected Gadhafit, they have asked many times for our help. Perhaps you haven't noticed this--though it has been in the news many times. Can't understand how you have missed it.

I only advocate what the provisional government in Benghazi is asking.   They have made it clear they want no Western ground troops.   And we must abide by that--nor do we even want to put in ground troops, you may possibly have noticed.

The Benghazi government does not want a Western "invasion".   Nor do we. What's more , I think you realize this, but choose for your own reasons to disregard it.

They do want Western governments to recognize them as the only legitimate government in Libya.   And to release to them at least some of the frozen funds.    And to provide more timely support from the air.
   
We should do all these things.

And a far more applicable comparison than Vietnam is 1938 Germany.    Dissidents in Germany then reached out to France and the UK, and were rebuffed.   

This was a huge mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 01:33 PM

And "occupation" is the last thing the Western powers want.

As anybody who could--and was willing to-- read could easily see.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 02:48 PM

Thanks for the good wishes, Ron.

I'm not intending to misrepresent your position. What I'm concerned about is the process that is referred to as "mission drift" - what starts as minimal intervention builds into full scale involvement, because minimal intervention just won't do the job.

There is no process by which the rebel administration in Benghazi can be recognised as "the only legitimate government in Libya" except a vote by the Security Council to that effect. And that is not going to happen.

This means that the level and nature of the intervention is severely restricted. Going further than those limitations would involve an effective breach with the UN, as happened in the case of Iraq.

"More timely support from the air" - there are real limits on how effective air support can be in countering ground troops who are not using heavy transport and heavy weapons, but using mortars and hand held guns. I doubt if frozen funds are a major problem in the short run. Similarly supplying arms and even training for rebel troops is not going to tun them into an effective fighting force with any prospect of defeating the Tripoli based army for quite some time. I doubt if it would make much difference at this point.

A ceasefire without preconditions and an attempt to negotiate seems to me the only realistic way of stopping the killing. And if it turned put to be temporary, with the fighting starting again, I think it likely that this would very likely actually put the rebels in a stronger military position.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 05:51 PM

"Gentlemen, lest we get carried away with our own rhetoric, NATO's mission is NOT to help the rebels. It's mission is to help protect civilians"

Bruce, I haven't laughed so much in ages.


Like it or not, Gadaffi's government WAS the Libyan government. People rebelled. He used force. That is the prerogative of government.

It was a military operation against a rebel force. Nothing at all to do with the UN.

The Americo-UN activity is, quite simply, interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

And while the Gadaffi regime may have been a kleptocracy, it provided more trickle-down benefits for its people than Ronnie Raygun, the Shrub, and Milk-Snatcher combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 06:53 PM

So, you think it is the prerogative of governments to slaughter unarmed citizens for protesting against their government, which is how the rebellion started in Libya, lest you forget. Well I, for one, am grateful that the world has finally learned the lessons of genocide in places like Srebrenica and Rwanda and has said it will no longer stand by while maniacal dictators slaughter their populations. As much as you might admire the bastard Gaddafi the people of Libya appear to have a different opinion of him and are willing to die to be free of his tyranny and with the world's help I hope they will be successful. Power to the people!

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Apr 11 - 10:51 PM

And please, Lizzie, spare us the canned drivel about "Western arrogance".    After a while breast-beating leftist tripe starts to get old.

The rebels begged--over and over--for our assistance.

Yet again--they do not want Western ground troops--which is fine with us.   They have told us what they do want, and we should comply.

There will be no Western "occupation"--since no party wants one, with the possible exception of Col. Gaddafi, since that's the only thing which could possibly unify Libyans behind him.

The idea of "occupation" of Libya is a self-inflicted Leftist nightmare, with no basis in reality.

But if it makes you happy to agonize about an absurd idea, by all means have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 02:35 AM

Bobad - think about it. Rulers rule.

Ron, think about it. There are plenty in the USA or UK who might beg for the assistance of a foreign power to dethrone our own kleptocracies. Goose, gander?

If it is legitimate for the US (etc) to interfere in Libya, then it is legitimate for other powers to interfere in the US (etc).

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:32 AM

"If it is legitimate for the US (etc) to interfere in Libya, then it is legitimate for other powers to interfere in the US (etc)."

If the US were waging war against it's citizenry then I should hope that "other powers" would intervene.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 07:53 AM

"...And please, Lizzie, spare us the canned drivel about "Western arrogance".    After a while breast-beating leftist tripe starts to get old.

The rebels begged--over and over--for our assistance....."


Strange that other rebels in other countries are apparently mute, or maybe it's just that we're deaf to their cries...OR, maybe it's other reasons, eh, Ron?

Come ON, Mugabe's been killing his people for years, but we entertain him on official visits! If he had oil of course, we might just sit up and listen...

I heard last night that over 300 people in one city have been killed, and whilst ANY person killed is a tragedy, other dictators kill hundreds of thousands of their people, yet we do NOTHING, not a damn thing.

I'm not a leftist, by the way....I'm not an anythingist, just a woman who has her eyes open, thinks differently to you and sees through all the political crap going down around me.

The West IS arrogant, I'm afraid and seems to think it should meddle in all affairs where there is something to be gained, yet turns a blind eye to all other affairs which do not directly benefit their political and corporate masters.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:05 AM

"Western arrogance"

The resolution to come to the aid of the citizens of Libya was made by the UN security council with the support of the Arab League, the African Union and the GCC.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:35 AM

The Arab League supported the idea - but none of its members have provided any actual assistance (too busy in some cases suppressing their own dissidents, or in the case of Saudi Arabia, the dissidents in its neighbour Bahrain).

The African Union has been busy trying to broker a ceasefire without preconditions, which has been rejected by the Benghazi and by Britain and France etc.

"The initials GCC may have different meanings in various fields"

But I think "Western arrogance" in this context isn't too helpful. The point is, there is a practical as well as principled limit to what can be done to intervene in other countries to prevent injustice. And there is always a very real danger that "striving to better oft we mar what's well" - or make bad things even worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 11 - 08:43 AM

GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 11 - 08:35 PM

Trump 'em

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:46 AM

Gaddafi is now using helicopters with Red Cross and Red Crescent markings to drop mines into the harbour of Misurata, which is clearly against international law. He also dropped bombs from small planes and destroyed Misurata's fuel supply. I say it's time for the US to get back into the fray and finish the bastard off.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/05/201157112432539341.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:56 AM

Well, some of Gadhafi's commanders are still able to plan and carry out strategic military missions. Score another one for their side.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 May 11 - 01:25 PM

Bobad is right.   And the longer the delay the more dead--on both sides. And of course the more expense to the West--if people are concerned about budgets, as seems the case.

Among other things, more drones--and more flights by them--are needed.

Nobody , neither the opponents of Western involvement nor those in favor of it, wants this to drag on.    Nobody but Gadhafi--since the longer it lasts the more likely the West--or the rebels--will give up.    Then comes the Brother Leader's payback on " the rats".    Which doesn't seem to bother some Mudcatters.

Let's lance this boil.


The only really good development I've seen recently is that it appears the West is preparing to release about $4.5 billion of the frozen funds to the rebels.

Supposedly only for food and other humanitarian purposes. But I've also seen "military salaries" named.   If this money becomes as fungible as is likely, the rebels can actually buy some of the weapons they need.

We also need to try to cut off oil sales by Gadhafi's regime--and promote those of the rebel government.

And there is no excuse for every member of NATO involved in this operation not to recognize the rebel provisional government as the only legitimate government.

The legitimacy of Gadhafi's regime is long gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 May 11 - 09:26 PM

Ron-

My only disagreement with you is my willingness to acknowledge that I don't know what will replace Gadhafi, whether it will be worse. I'm willing to assume nothing could be worse but that may not be true. I'm not picking up any reservations from you with regard to supporting the rebels, and I find that frankly puzzling.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 07 May 11 - 10:11 PM

Oh yeah .... Libya ..... forgot about that.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 08 May 11 - 03:48 AM

Cameron......opportunist
Blair .......opportunist
Sarkosy......opportunist

It's all about access to Libyan oil rights......fools

We are being used by a bunch of pirates, fundamentalists and immature young kids blinded by the mirage of Western "democracy"(consumerism)

Do you people really want to promote a fullscale civil war in Libya, with all the thousands of deaths that will involve?
Or is your stance simply ideological masturbation?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 11 - 09:59 AM

I'll leave Ake to answer his own question--not that there's any purple prose in it. Of course not.

Mine for him is:   yet again:    Are you just fine with Gadhafi slaughtering his own dissidents? If not, how will you prevent it?

For Charlie, and other reasonable people this is a start on his answer. I will have a lot more--no time now.   I read constantly everything I can get on the Libyan crisis--whether it supports Western intervention or not.

It's clear to me the only reason not to intervene with everything the rebels have asked for--that is, everything but ground troops, is the fear that the rebels would form a worse regime for Libya than Gadhafi.   Specifically that al-Qaeda would benefit.    On this point, it is clear from my reading that al-Qaeda is the refuge of the desperate.    The way to encourage al_Qaeda in Libya would be to let Gadhafi win--and watch the annihilation of his opposition that would follow.    The bitter survivors would turn to the ideology which sees violence as the solution to problems--that is, to al Qaeda,    The "Arab spring" would be harshly discredited in the cruelest way.


More later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:57 AM

Ron-

I certainly agree with that reasoning.

I also acknowledge that better access to oil has a lot to do with the interest of most NATO members in displacing Gadhafi. Of course Gadhafi did a reasonable job of keeping them all supplied for years but he was, and remains, a wild card. Who's to say if access to oil will be any more reliable or on more favorable turns under a new rebel regime?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 May 11 - 12:45 PM

The U.S. has stepped into another civil war in a Muslim country.

No boots on the ground? Don't count on it.

Nato's boss is the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 11 - 11:52 PM

Proof of the pudding....

Unless you are convinced of course that there is no difference between Obama and GWB.



As I have noted already, there are huge differences between the Libya and Iraq interventions. To find a tortured parallel, you would have to posit that in 2003 in Iraq before the first Western bomb fell, half the country, including half his own military, had already deserted Saddam.   And that the rebels had already appealed directly to the West for aid several times. Neither of which was the case. As is obvious to anybody who takes off his leftist goggles.



Again there's not much time.


But there are scads of articles about the provisional government and the rebels.   Not hard to find.

Just one more example for tonight:

Christian Science Monitor:

(Anybody who gags at the word Christian need not read further).

Voice of Free Libya:    a song "written in 2002 by...a medical student who spent three years in jail in the 1990's for speaking out against Gadhafi.   The patriotic song was soon banned from the airwaves and is now a favorite among protestors downtown waiting for the fall of Tripoli."

"It's all about love of country and identifying with the people's suffering." "It doesn't mention Gaddafi and he hated this. He wanted to be the symbol of all good things in Libya,   That kind of patriotism was threatening to him " says one Libyan.

Lots and lots more examples of the rebels' attitudes.   No time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:42 PM

Ah, yes, "Nato" (=US) attack on party of young clerics.

As posted elsewhere, this is my "told you so" day.

Told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:04 PM

Richard-

And it's entirely possible that 12 clerics were killed in a NATO bombing raid or Brega, as Gadhafi has gleefully pointed out. If the story is true, it's very unfortunate. So it goes.

Meanwhile the Rebels seem to have had some success in clearing Gadhafi's forces from in and around Misrata, including the airport.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 11 - 12:05 PM

Without Nato assisination attacks the insurgency would have been over and forgotten about weeks ago......now the West must kill Gadaffi and all his family and probably thousands of civilians to justify being there to begin with.

What a shower of fucking idiots

Just like Blair in Iraq.......Cameron is a proven liar and manipulator, who is now being manipulated by a gang of Islamists, opportunists and dreamers.

And like Iraq its being done in our name!

And why no brave assasination attempt on Assad or his family?

Stp Press.....Muslim Brotherhood to fight the Egyptian elections
Once again I find myself with Richard........"I told you so"

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Charley Noble
Date: 14 May 11 - 02:50 PM

akenaton-

"Without Nato assisination attacks the insurgency would have been over and forgotten about weeks ago......now the West must kill Gadaffi and all his family and probably thousands of civilians to justify being there to begin with.

What a shower of fucking idiots"

It's probably true that the Rebel insurgency would have been suppressed and many of the "Rebels" slaughtered by Gadhafi's forces a month or so ago without NATO assistance.

Calling people "fucking idiots" doesn't necessarily improve the logic of what you're saying.

Your rational for non-intervention would be what?

Intervention would not have been politically possible without the call by the Arab League for UN intervention, nor without the UN authorizing NATO to intervene on its behalf.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 11 - 07:59 PM

So when a bunch of Islamists call for an assassination attempt on Cameron or Obama will that be right? Apart from the beneficial effect generally of killing Cameron. It's a jurisdictional issue. None of our business to interfere internal Libyan law and order any more than it's there place to interfere here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 11 - 10:53 PM

"None of our business to interfere internal Libyan law and order any more than it's there place to interfere here."

There is an international norm known as Requirement to Protect.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 15 May 11 - 04:06 AM

Akenaton - I could have written exactly the same as your post. Not surprising as I generally agree with your posts.

And I agree with Richard Bridge. There's a first time for everything.

To Ron Davies, Charley Noble, bobad and any other victims of the US propaganda machine - you don't protect people by bombing the shit out of them. Wasn't it the Vietnam debacle that came up with "fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity".

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 05:06 AM

Well said G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 11 - 08:15 AM

Good article in The Telegraph    Handwringers take note.

Highlights:

"Even for an Arab dictator, it is an unusually cynical variant of the "human shield" gambit. On the roof of his Tripoli command bunker, Colonel Gaddafi has installed a children's fairground.

Forty feet away from the crater made on Thursday by a NATO bomb, young boys and girls played happily on a roundabout shaped like a giant tea set."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The reporter speaking to random citizens in Tripoli:

"Within thirty seconds, I had turned a corner and was out of sight in the narrow covered passages of the souk. And within ten minutes, I had spoken to three people who told me, quite bluntly, that they despised Gaddafi and wanted him gone.

"He is mad," said the man in the striped shirt, having first taken the precaution of checking my passport to make sure that I was indeed British."I want to be able to criticise him – why shouldn't I? He has ruined this country."

Another trader told me about the year he had spent in southern England. "Sarkozy, Cameron, they are doing what we all want," he said. "Tell everyone that we don't mind the bombing at all. We want the government to change." A third person said that the shopkeepers in the souk had been ordered to stay open, even though there was very little business, to preserve an appearance of normality."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Even at the bomb sites themselves - visited on official trips in the middle of the night, just after they happen, or the next day - almost no-one is hostile. It must have something to do with the fact that, in two months of attacks, almost none of Tripoli's civilians have been harmed. "We know that the regime's claims about civilian casualties are b----," said one customer who approached me in a shop as I was buying a soft drink. "There is a lot of opposition to Gaddafi in Tripoli.""

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:15 AM

Consider Egypt and Tunisia: at least those military forces stood with the democratic aspirations of the people, and those dictators resigned rather than let their countries dissolve in bloodshed.

Does anyone seriously think that once Gaddafi decided slaughter his opponents rather than resign there was *any* solution that would adequately protect human life?

Gaddafi announced also that once the rebel cities had fallen, he would be ruthless in destroying individual lives.

So what it comes down to, from a humanitarian point of view, is

A. who's killing more people - Gaddafi or NATO

B. whether the total casualties will finally be less or more than they would have been if Gaddafi had been allowed a free hand

C. whether the hoped-for overthrow of Gaddafi is worth [X number] of human lives

D. whether NATO's actions, taken (at least in part) to prevent G's announced slaughter, are morally superior to G's actions, taken solely to keep himself in power.

Anyone who has a clear, indisputable answer to A, B, or C, please share it and explain why it is so obvious to you and not to the rest of us.

And is there anyone who doesn't know the answer to D?

Subject: RE: BS: Bombing of Tripoli March-April, 2011
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 11 - 09:55 AM

There is only one question....Who's business is it to deal with an armed insurrection in a sovereign country?

Gadaffi provided for his people better than any other leader of any other state in the area.....according to information available.

He was against the excesses of Muslim Fundamentalism.....so why are we involved here and nowhere else, even in countries who are shooting their unarmed citizens daily in cold blood?

Oil Rights......and the fact that Gadaffi is a "loose cannon" as far as supplying the West is concerned, is disliked by other Arab puppets, and is not "our monkey"

Col Gadaffi, most of his family and thousands of civilians, will be sacrificed for what the West believes is their interests, just as Saddam, his family and almost a million Iraqis were sacrificed in another illegal and immoral war.